Any LAWYERS---PLEASE READ CAREFULLY!!!
Justin wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Most of you know by now that Smith & Wesson has reached a settlement
> agreement with the Clinton administration regarding how they
> manufacture and distribute their firearms. While most people on the
> side of the Second Amendment see this as a travesty, which it is, I
> feel this may actually be the best thing to happen to gun rights since
> the Declaration of Independence.
>
> Simply put, in drafting this agreement, Smith & Wesson, The Treasury
> Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
> Clinton Administration, et al, have broken the law. In fact, they are
> guilty of having committed a felony.
>
> The entities most affected by this crime are Glock, Kel-Tec and
> Taurus; the legal departments of those three companies should find
> this most interesting.
>
> We need to look at the agreement itself, to see how this crime has
> unfolded, and more so, that a crime has even been committed in the
> first place.
>
> Let us begin by looking at Section II.A.1:
>
> “II. A. Authorized distributors and dealers.
> 1. The manufacturer parties to this Agreement may sell only to
> authorized distributors and authorized dealers. In order to qualify to
> become an authorized distributor or authorized dealer, the distributor
> or dealer must agree in writing to:”
>
> What this means is that in order to sell any Smith & Wesson products,
> the dealer must be “authorized” by Smith & Wesson, and abide by
> certain rules. In fact, the dealer must agree in writing, making this
> a written contract between Smith & Wesson and any dealer who wishes to
> sell Smith & Wesson products. This in and of itself is not a crime.
> Many companies make arrangements between themselves and their
> retailers. However, in this case, this is only the beginning.
>
> The issue here is what a dealer must agree to. This is defined in part
> by Section II.A.1.h:
>
> “II. A. 1. h. Not sell ammunition magazines that are able to accept
> more than 10 rounds regardless of the date of manufacture, not sell
> any semi-automatic assault weapon as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(30)
> regardless of the date of manufacture, provide safety locks and
> warnings with firearms, as specified in Section 1 above, and sell only
> firearms that comport with the design criteria of this Agreement.”
>
> This paragraph provides just a few of the things a dealer must do in
> order to be an “Authorized Smith & Wesson Dealer” and thus allowed to
> sell Smith & Wesson products. While forcing a dealer to provide a
> safety lock and warning with every firearm sold just to be allowed to
> sell Smith & Wesson products is questionable, this is not where the
> criminal intent lies. In fact, prohibiting dealers from selling high
> capacity magazines or so-called “pre-ban” firearms in order to be
> allowed to sell Smith & Wesson products is not my focus either. While
> that certainly smacks of unconstitutionality, that in and of itself
> would be a difficult case to win in court. (Perhaps some attorney
> reading this would like to give it a shot?) My concern is the last
> part, which reads “and sell only firearms that comport with the design
> criteria of this Agreement.”
>
> We must ask which firearms a dealer would not be allowed to sell. By
> further reading what types of firearms a manufacturer would be
> prohibited from selling, we can determine what types of firearms do
> not “comport with the design criteria of this Agreement” and thus
> would not be allowed to be sold by any dealer who wishes to sell Smith
> & Wesson products.
>
> This brings us to Section I.D.:
>
> “I. D. Illegal firearms. The manufacturer parties to this Agreement
> shall not sell firearms that can be readily converted to an illegal
> firearm, that is, a weapon designed in a manner so that with few
> additional parts and/or minimal modifications an owner can convert the
> firearm to an illegal fully automatic weapon; nor shall the firearms
> be designed so that they are resistant to fingerprints.”
>
> So, any dealer who wishes to sell Smith & Wesson products has to agree
> in writing to refrain from selling any firearm that can be readily
> converted to a fully automatic weapon, as well as any firearm that is
> resistant to fingerprints. Now, any gun owner with even a little
> mechanical knowledge knows that almost every semi-automatic firearm
> can be converted to fully automatic with “few additional parts and/or
> minimal modifications”. This is not at issue here, because it is so
> widespread and sweeping that it includes almost any semi-automatic
> firearm and thus is virtually unenforceable. What does matter is that
> dealers will be restricted from selling any firearm by any
> manufacturer which is resistant to fingerprints, if they want to sell
> Smith & Wesson products. This is where the ramifications of this
> agreement lie.
>
> I have been unable to find any legal definition of what “resistant to
> fingerprints” means. The best I could achieve were two bills in
> Florida (HB 789 and SB 1020). They stated that the legal definition of
> resistant to fingerprints meant that the firearm was constructed of a
> material or had a coating that “substantially prevented a law
> enforcement agency from identifying the holder of the gun by use of
> fingerprinting.” Not much help there. With the lack of a legal
> definition of what materials and coatings would be considered
> “fingerprint resistant” we must make an educated guess.
>
> Typically, the same materials and finishes that make a firearm
> corrosion resistant also make the firearm fingerprint resistant. This
> would include titanium, stainless steel and polymer framed firearms,
> as well as such finishes as tennifer.
>
> So, what does all this mean? Where is the crime? Well, what it means
> is that in order to sell Smith & Wesson products, a dealer must enter
> into a written contract and agree to not sell any firearm that is made
> of titanium, stainless steel, polymer, or that has a finish like
> tennifer. In other words, in order to sell a Smith & Wesson product, a
> dealer is forbidden from selling Taurus’s new titanium line, Kel-Tec’s
> handgun lines, as well as pretty much anything manufactured by Glock.
> This is an anti-trust violation and it is a felony. It is an attempt
> to force these manufacturers and their products out of the market. It
> would behoove Taurus, Kel-Tec and Glock to contact their respective
> States Attorneys and stop this anti- trust violation in its tracks.
>
> Furthermore, the government at various levels has engaged in a
> conspiracy to commit a felony, namely anti-trust violations, by
> encouraging Smith & Wesson to sign this agreement. Indeed, the
> Department of Housing and Urban Development’s own press release
> “PR00-61” states that “[Government agencies] will support giving a gun
> purchase preference to any gun maker adopting the new gun safety and
> dealer responsibility standards agreed to last week by gun maker Smith
> & Wesson, the Clinton Administration, local governments and attorneys
> general.” In other words, they are effectively bribing companies with
> government contracts to enter into an anti-trust violation, and using
> public funds to do it.
>
> Anyone who signed that agreement is prosecutable under anti-trust
> statutes, as well as their offices and administrations if they were
> acting on official behalf. So, you have anti-trust violations,
> conspiracy to commit a felony, and bribery. Plus, since this was
> funded by public money, you can add mismanagement of public funds as
> well.
>
> Who is guilty? Everyone involved. This astute list includes the
> following: Smith & Wesson; the Clinton Administration; the Department
> of the Treasury; the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
> Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo; White House
> Domestic Policy Advisor Bruce Reed; Senator Charles Schumer of New
> York; Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy of New York; Attorneys General J.
> Joseph Curran of Maryland, Eliot Spitzer of New York, and Richard
> Blumenthal of Connecticut; as well as various Mayors, City Districts,
> and Counties among others.
>
> Finally, and this is the icing on the cake, Smith & Wesson is owned by
> the British company, Tomkins PLC. So, what we have are foreign
> nationals working with the elected officials of our own government to
> undermine our constitutional rights by using bribery and conspiracy to
> commit felonies on American soil and force companies such Glock,
> Taurus and Kel-Tec out of business via illegal trade practices and
> anti- trust violations. In fact, our own government agents have
> promised public funds to foreign nationals (Tomkins PLC) via contracts
> with their subsidiary Smith & Wesson for the commission of a felony.
>
> What could possibly be better for those of us who are working to
> defend the Second Amendment? We have a variety of charges and
> defendants to choose from. I’m sure that with a little legal research
> (I am not an attorney) many more charges could be added as well.
> Possibly racketeering? Maybe the finances of those involved are
> vulnerable under the RICO statutes? If any non-profit groups were a
> party to these felonies and conspiracies, perhaps their NPO status
> could be revoked?
>
> Our opposition has made some serious errors and it is up to us to take
> advantage of them. We must use every avenue presented to us in order
> to win this war against our civil rights.
>
> Keep the faith,
> Justin Gramm Glenn V. Domingo
> { HYPERLINK "mailto:gizmonic@xnet.com" }gizmonic@xnet.com
> choirboy777@hotmail.com
>
> http://home.xnet.com/~gizmonic/themarch.html
Justin wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Most of you know by now that Smith & Wesson has reached a settlement
> agreement with the Clinton administration regarding how they
> manufacture and distribute their firearms. While most people on the
> side of the Second Amendment see this as a travesty, which it is, I
> feel this may actually be the best thing to happen to gun rights since
> the Declaration of Independence.
>
> Simply put, in drafting this agreement, Smith & Wesson, The Treasury
> Department, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the
> Clinton Administration, et al, have broken the law. In fact, they are
> guilty of having committed a felony.
>
> The entities most affected by this crime are Glock, Kel-Tec and
> Taurus; the legal departments of those three companies should find
> this most interesting.
>
> We need to look at the agreement itself, to see how this crime has
> unfolded, and more so, that a crime has even been committed in the
> first place.
>
> Let us begin by looking at Section II.A.1:
>
> “II. A. Authorized distributors and dealers.
> 1. The manufacturer parties to this Agreement may sell only to
> authorized distributors and authorized dealers. In order to qualify to
> become an authorized distributor or authorized dealer, the distributor
> or dealer must agree in writing to:”
>
> What this means is that in order to sell any Smith & Wesson products,
> the dealer must be “authorized” by Smith & Wesson, and abide by
> certain rules. In fact, the dealer must agree in writing, making this
> a written contract between Smith & Wesson and any dealer who wishes to
> sell Smith & Wesson products. This in and of itself is not a crime.
> Many companies make arrangements between themselves and their
> retailers. However, in this case, this is only the beginning.
>
> The issue here is what a dealer must agree to. This is defined in part
> by Section II.A.1.h:
>
> “II. A. 1. h. Not sell ammunition magazines that are able to accept
> more than 10 rounds regardless of the date of manufacture, not sell
> any semi-automatic assault weapon as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(30)
> regardless of the date of manufacture, provide safety locks and
> warnings with firearms, as specified in Section 1 above, and sell only
> firearms that comport with the design criteria of this Agreement.”
>
> This paragraph provides just a few of the things a dealer must do in
> order to be an “Authorized Smith & Wesson Dealer” and thus allowed to
> sell Smith & Wesson products. While forcing a dealer to provide a
> safety lock and warning with every firearm sold just to be allowed to
> sell Smith & Wesson products is questionable, this is not where the
> criminal intent lies. In fact, prohibiting dealers from selling high
> capacity magazines or so-called “pre-ban” firearms in order to be
> allowed to sell Smith & Wesson products is not my focus either. While
> that certainly smacks of unconstitutionality, that in and of itself
> would be a difficult case to win in court. (Perhaps some attorney
> reading this would like to give it a shot?) My concern is the last
> part, which reads “and sell only firearms that comport with the design
> criteria of this Agreement.”
>
> We must ask which firearms a dealer would not be allowed to sell. By
> further reading what types of firearms a manufacturer would be
> prohibited from selling, we can determine what types of firearms do
> not “comport with the design criteria of this Agreement” and thus
> would not be allowed to be sold by any dealer who wishes to sell Smith
> & Wesson products.
>
> This brings us to Section I.D.:
>
> “I. D. Illegal firearms. The manufacturer parties to this Agreement
> shall not sell firearms that can be readily converted to an illegal
> firearm, that is, a weapon designed in a manner so that with few
> additional parts and/or minimal modifications an owner can convert the
> firearm to an illegal fully automatic weapon; nor shall the firearms
> be designed so that they are resistant to fingerprints.”
>
> So, any dealer who wishes to sell Smith & Wesson products has to agree
> in writing to refrain from selling any firearm that can be readily
> converted to a fully automatic weapon, as well as any firearm that is
> resistant to fingerprints. Now, any gun owner with even a little
> mechanical knowledge knows that almost every semi-automatic firearm
> can be converted to fully automatic with “few additional parts and/or
> minimal modifications”. This is not at issue here, because it is so
> widespread and sweeping that it includes almost any semi-automatic
> firearm and thus is virtually unenforceable. What does matter is that
> dealers will be restricted from selling any firearm by any
> manufacturer which is resistant to fingerprints, if they want to sell
> Smith & Wesson products. This is where the ramifications of this
> agreement lie.
>
> I have been unable to find any legal definition of what “resistant to
> fingerprints” means. The best I could achieve were two bills in
> Florida (HB 789 and SB 1020). They stated that the legal definition of
> resistant to fingerprints meant that the firearm was constructed of a
> material or had a coating that “substantially prevented a law
> enforcement agency from identifying the holder of the gun by use of
> fingerprinting.” Not much help there. With the lack of a legal
> definition of what materials and coatings would be considered
> “fingerprint resistant” we must make an educated guess.
>
> Typically, the same materials and finishes that make a firearm
> corrosion resistant also make the firearm fingerprint resistant. This
> would include titanium, stainless steel and polymer framed firearms,
> as well as such finishes as tennifer.
>
> So, what does all this mean? Where is the crime? Well, what it means
> is that in order to sell Smith & Wesson products, a dealer must enter
> into a written contract and agree to not sell any firearm that is made
> of titanium, stainless steel, polymer, or that has a finish like
> tennifer. In other words, in order to sell a Smith & Wesson product, a
> dealer is forbidden from selling Taurus’s new titanium line, Kel-Tec’s
> handgun lines, as well as pretty much anything manufactured by Glock.
> This is an anti-trust violation and it is a felony. It is an attempt
> to force these manufacturers and their products out of the market. It
> would behoove Taurus, Kel-Tec and Glock to contact their respective
> States Attorneys and stop this anti- trust violation in its tracks.
>
> Furthermore, the government at various levels has engaged in a
> conspiracy to commit a felony, namely anti-trust violations, by
> encouraging Smith & Wesson to sign this agreement. Indeed, the
> Department of Housing and Urban Development’s own press release
> “PR00-61” states that “[Government agencies] will support giving a gun
> purchase preference to any gun maker adopting the new gun safety and
> dealer responsibility standards agreed to last week by gun maker Smith
> & Wesson, the Clinton Administration, local governments and attorneys
> general.” In other words, they are effectively bribing companies with
> government contracts to enter into an anti-trust violation, and using
> public funds to do it.
>
> Anyone who signed that agreement is prosecutable under anti-trust
> statutes, as well as their offices and administrations if they were
> acting on official behalf. So, you have anti-trust violations,
> conspiracy to commit a felony, and bribery. Plus, since this was
> funded by public money, you can add mismanagement of public funds as
> well.
>
> Who is guilty? Everyone involved. This astute list includes the
> following: Smith & Wesson; the Clinton Administration; the Department
> of the Treasury; the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
> Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo; White House
> Domestic Policy Advisor Bruce Reed; Senator Charles Schumer of New
> York; Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy of New York; Attorneys General J.
> Joseph Curran of Maryland, Eliot Spitzer of New York, and Richard
> Blumenthal of Connecticut; as well as various Mayors, City Districts,
> and Counties among others.
>
> Finally, and this is the icing on the cake, Smith & Wesson is owned by
> the British company, Tomkins PLC. So, what we have are foreign
> nationals working with the elected officials of our own government to
> undermine our constitutional rights by using bribery and conspiracy to
> commit felonies on American soil and force companies such Glock,
> Taurus and Kel-Tec out of business via illegal trade practices and
> anti- trust violations. In fact, our own government agents have
> promised public funds to foreign nationals (Tomkins PLC) via contracts
> with their subsidiary Smith & Wesson for the commission of a felony.
>
> What could possibly be better for those of us who are working to
> defend the Second Amendment? We have a variety of charges and
> defendants to choose from. I’m sure that with a little legal research
> (I am not an attorney) many more charges could be added as well.
> Possibly racketeering? Maybe the finances of those involved are
> vulnerable under the RICO statutes? If any non-profit groups were a
> party to these felonies and conspiracies, perhaps their NPO status
> could be revoked?
>
> Our opposition has made some serious errors and it is up to us to take
> advantage of them. We must use every avenue presented to us in order
> to win this war against our civil rights.
>
> Keep the faith,
> Justin Gramm Glenn V. Domingo
> { HYPERLINK "mailto:gizmonic@xnet.com" }gizmonic@xnet.com
> choirboy777@hotmail.com
>
> http://home.xnet.com/~gizmonic/themarch.html